Guidelines per se do not partake to the character of statute

[goodboy_mentor]

Since MHA has created confusion and messed up arms licensing by issuing periodic guidelines which are against the provisions of Arms Act 1959 as well its objects and reasons, many arms license applicant or licensing authorities get confused and intimidated by MHA guidelines. Felt like sharing a Supreme Court judgment in this context.

Guidelines per se do not partake to the character of statute. Such guidelines in absence of the statutory backdrop are advisory in nature. This is because guidelines, by their very nature, do not fall into the category of legislation, direct, subordinate or ancillary. They have only an advisory role to play and non-adherence to or deviation from them is necessarily and implicitly permissible if the circumstances of any particular fact or law situation warrants the same.

Supreme Court of India
Poonam Verma & Ors vs Delhi Development Authority on 13 December, 2007
Author: S.B. Sinha
Bench: S Sinha, H S Bedi
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5874 of 2007
J U D G M E N T [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 1322 of 2007] S.B. SINHA, J :

[varunik]

Couldnt get a thing.
Please enlighten me

[nagarifle]

Couldnt get a thing.
Please enlighten me

please GBM say it in a lay mans lingo,

thanks as it looks promising, i think?

[xl_target]

The Supreme Court says that guidelines issued are purely advisory in nature and are not the law. Not following them is permissible.
Correct me it I am wrong but GBM is saying that, by extension, this could be applied to MHA's guidelines about firearms. They are not the law (just advice) even though treated by most Babu's as such.

[goodboy_mentor]

Yes xl_target has understood it correct.

[nagarifle]

thanks, that is a very good news which the babus will find hard to swallow, and easy to choke on.lol

[winnie_the_pooh]

So you expect a babu to take an initiative

[goodboy_mentor]

Another Supreme Court judgment related to this matter in Subhash Ramkumar Bind @ Vakil & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 12 November, 2002(complete judgment can be read in this link http://indiankanoon.org/doc/311923/)

The Statute speaks of a notification in the Official Gazette can an administrative note in relation to importation of a prohibited arm be termed to be sufficient so as to come within the ambit of the statutory requirement of a notification in the Official Gazette the answer cannot but be in the negative. Administrative instructions cannot possibly be a substitute for a notification which stands as a requirement of the Statute.

On the wake of the aforesaid, question of there being any notification even in the guise of an administrative order does not and cannot arise. The requirement of the Statute is sacrosanct and since the issue shall have to be dealt with utmost care and caution, without the issuance of a notification question of a conviction under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act would not arise. We are thus unable to record our concurrence with the submissions of the State that the administrative instructions ought to be treated as a notification the same cannot be sustained for reasons noticed herein before and by reason of the stringency of the provision as laid down in Section 27(3),